..On Saturday September 18th, Wisconsin Carry received a call to our hotline about an incident in progress at a Culvers Restaurant in Madison, WI.

5 of our members who had met at previous WCI events and on the opencarry.org discussion forum planned to get together for dinner at Culvers Restaurant near East Towne in Madison, WI. They were, of course, open-carrying as they do every day.

Based on information gathered over the past several days here are the facts of the case:

Our members had finished dinner and were outside preparing to leave when 8 Madison Police officers arrived and began to demand ID. Officers told the members that if they did not produce ID they would be arrested.

2 of the 5 declined to provide ID. Wisconsin law does NOT allow officers to demand ID from individuals who have done nothing wrong. Wisconsin law also specifically does not allow officers to arrest an individual who has done nothing wrong for merely refusing to show ID.

2 of our members were subsequently arrested and charged with obstructing.

It was later learned that a 62 year old woman in the restaurant had called 911 and inquired as to whether it was legal for people to openly carry firearms. The caller indicated there was no disturbance but she was "worried". Madison Police responded, not by informing the caller that open-carry is legal, but rather sending 8 officers to respond to a peaceful situation.

It is a person's choice whether or not they wish to provide the police their ID when they have done nothing wrong. Without knowing the motivation of officers who are aggressively demanding ID and threatening arrest, its understandable why a person who has done nothing wrong would want to maintain their privacy. Its IMPERATIVE that police follow the law. Police are not allowed to arrest you for merely failing to provide ID. If the police can operate outside of the law, it does us NO good to vote and elect legislators to represent us and pass laws if the police will make-up and enforce whatever they feel like enforcing.

Wisconsin Carry fully expected that on Monday morning, those with an education in the law would return to their office from the weekend and promptly recognize the error made by the officers on the scene.

Madison Police DID recognize their error and rescinded the tickets for obstruction that were issued to 2 of our members. Madison Police admit in a press release those tickets were given in error. Madison Police then issued Disorderly Conduct citations to ALL 5 of our members. According to Madison Police, if ONE person is 'worried', even though there is no disturbance, your constitutional rights mean nothing. Wisconsin's Attorney General CLEARLY stated in a memo in April of 2009 that open-carry IS NOT disorderly conduct.

Madison Police then continued their disregard for Wisconsin residents constitutional rights by issuing a statement indicating that Madison police will: Approach anyone who is open-carrying using "the proper tactical response. The individual should be contacted, controlled, and frisked for weapons if appropriate. Officers should separate the suspect from any weapons in his/her possession during the encounter."

Read the press release here:

http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2231

As such, Wisconsin Carry will be fast-tracking a federal lawsuit against the Madison Police Department for this policy which is a blatant and defenseless violation of the rights of law-abiding citizens who are doing nothing wrong.

Wisconsin Carry will also, if needed, retain an attorney to challenge the Disorderly Conduct citations issued to 5 of our members.

Wisconsin Carry feels this is a fundamental issue, and a situation that has implications for every resident in the state of Wisconsin. Police Departments all across the state have received the AG memo and responded accordingly training officers in the appropriate and lawful response to a law-abiding citizen open-carrying. Madison MUST be held to the same standard. Wisconsin law apply's to everyone in the state, not just those outside of Madison. Its imperative that the Madison Police Department follow the law. Very soon, we expect Wisconsinites to have the ability to legally conceal carry. If police do not respect the legal right to open-carry we already have, how can we expect them to respect the right to conceal carry that we all seek as well?

WE NEED YOUR HELP.

In order to get this lawsuit filed quickly, we need donations to fund the legal fee's.

If you can donate specifically for the "Madison 5" lawsuit please visit our homepage:

www.wisconsincarry.org

On the main page you will see a "Donate" button where you can make a donation that will go specifically to this "Madison 5" lawsuit.

You may also mail a donation to:

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
P.O. Box 270403
Milwaukee, WI 53227

This incident has received a huge amount of attention from the media. Its possible it may even garner national attention in the near future.

Many discussions regarding the incident, and links to media coverage of the incident are taking place on the discussion forums at opencarry.org:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?133-Wisconsin

You may also follow this and other Wisconsin Carry activities by joining Wisconsin Carry's facebook group: Search "Wisconsin Carry, Inc" or "Wisconsin Carry" on facebook.

If you haven't already done so, we also invite you to officially join Wisconsin Carry from out website as well. Membership is $15 for the first year.

Please spread this information to other online gun forums etc as we seek to protect and expand the rights of Wisconsin residents to carry.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc is a non-profit all volunteer organization. We are dedicated to the protection and expansion of the rights of law-abiding Wisconsinites to carry in the manner of their choosing. We believe that "open carry" or "conceal carry" are choices to be made by YOU the law abiding citizen based on what suits your needs. As open-carry is (with a few exceptions where conceal carry is already found legal) the only way to currently carry in Wisconsin, we advocate that all who wish to carry follow state law while we pursue an expansive conceal carry right for all law-abiding Wisconsinites during the next legislative session.

Is it legal in WI for a felon to open carry a firearm?? If not, how is the police officer to know if you are a felon with out your ID and subsequent computer check. Some of your group provided ID some didn't. Was alcohol an issue? It just seems that failure to comply is over reaction. Now it is going to cost your organization and members time and money to address this issue. How is this different from the case where the police ask for your drivers license in a traffic situation?? Good Luck

Legionnaire

September 24, 2010, 09:35 AM

It just seems that failure to comply is over reaction. The whole point is that citizens are not required and should not be expected to comply with unlawful demands. Sounds like the Madison police have provided a good opportunity to make that case.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 10:05 AM

WI has "stop and identify laws" which require you to provide ID to a police officer if he has reasonable suspicion that a crime or violation of the law has occured. The term reasonable suspicion is a nebulous term and usually is determined in court. By the time you get that far you have expended considerable time and money on attorney's. Does Madison have laws implementing the STate law on Open Carry?? The Madison Police should have explained the situation to the caller. That may have resolved the issue but they were required to investigate. I believe the attitude of the two who refused to ID themselves led to the police action. What we may have here is an overreation by both sides to one degree or the other. After thought did the personnel involved violate Wis. Stats 941.237 which prohibits carrying a handgun into an establishmen that serves alcohol??

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 11:33 AM

This is the otherside of the issue:

http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2231

NavyLCDR

September 24, 2010, 12:42 PM

ID Check

Is it legal in WI for a felon to open carry a firearm?? If not, how is the police officer to know if you are a felon with out your ID and subsequent computer check.

You are from Illinois and it shows.

In America the police do not stop law abiding citizens and demand to see their "papers" to prove that they are lawfully enganging in an activity that is, well... lawful.

Kidnapping is illegal. The police should stop every person who is in possession of a child to verify that they are lawfully in possession of that child and not kidnapping, right? What's the difference?

blutarsky

September 24, 2010, 12:56 PM

After thought did the personnel involved violate Wis. Stats 941.237 which prohibits carrying a handgun into an establishmen that serves alcohol??
they were in a culvers "restaurant" -- fast food, think a nicer mcdonalds with food that's actually edible.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 12:58 PM

Read the link cited above. It seems the lawmakers and I agree. Being from Illinois we don't have to worry about the fine points we just don't carry. Someday Illinois will be on the carry list. When that day comes I hope we are more selective in the fights we elect to indulge. No one knows how the WI issue will be resolved.but it seems a waste to spend money on a fight that need never have happened witness the three who provided ID.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 01:00 PM

I am not familar with Culvers so alcohol isn't an issue. Thanks for info.

esquare

September 24, 2010, 01:23 PM

snubbies - it's not a worthless fight. We don't live in a country where papers are required to walk around. Unless they are engaging in, or the officer had reason to believe they were engaging in illegal behavior, they don't have to provide ID. It seems like you aren't for any type of activism (note your opinions that the Toys-R-Us boycott is worthless) - how else are things going to change if not challenged?

The basic problem is that the police think that lawful behavior is not lawful, and instead of following the law they are following their own agenda. Would you accept this if the officers thought that the speed limit on a 40mph stretch should really be 30mph so they stop anyone going 40mph and cite them for reckless endangerment? Of course - that's ridiculous and so is the behavior from these officers.

BTW, this fight in WI about open carry in Madison has been going on for a while now, and we are making progress, but only because a few good men and women and stepping up to challenge the infringements on their rights.

Legionnaire

September 24, 2010, 01:40 PM

This is the otherside of the issue:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2231 snubbies, read your link; thanks. My concern is that if open carry is legal, how can the police establish procedures that treat open carry or others' reaction to it as disturbance of the peace? (EDIT: should have said "disorderly conduct" rather than "disturbance of the peace.") Just because the police chief drew these conclusions doesn't make them right.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 01:44 PM

As I said reasonable suspicion is determined by the officer and confirmed or denied by the court. I am for activism but not for fruitless endeavors. The two men involved in the WI issue were provoking a confrontation. The other three from the same organization abided by the officers request. The officer did not initiate of his own volution the confronation he was called to the scene by another citizen. Since there were several men armed and probably reported that way it was logical to send more than one officer. As far as the TRU issue is concerned if you read all of my postings you would see I favor another course of action other than e-mail and letter writing. You see what the e-mail got you. They closed their server. Reading the link to the WI paper and the City of Madison's reply it seems logical to me what the officer did. In your analogies if the officer had suspicion the baby was kidnapped he would have the right and duty to stop the woman. Each case is different. Police officers are trained to use their best judgement in accordance with the law. The people in the restaurant may not be informed that it is legal to open carry. In come several men carrying guns. That has to be disturbing. The first officers on the scene could have handled it better but the two disenters provoked the pi**** contest. If WI Carry is looking to get concealed carry they would better spend their money in other areas

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 01:48 PM

Legionaire

Until such time as the issue of open carry and "stop and identify" is resolved in the legislature the chief of police has the duty to enforce the law as it is. The law is mute an several aspects of this case but the chief is doing what he considers best for the public at large. Until such time as the public is informed and accepts the right to carry problems such as this will arise. I does not behoove either side to be confrontational.

hso

September 24, 2010, 01:49 PM

The charges of Obstructing a Piece Officer against the two who refused to present ID were rescinded so it seems the PD has decided that the officers were wrong and the citizens were within their rights to refuse to present their IDs just as the Wisconsin Carry release said.

Whether the Disorderly Conduct charges for the individuals in the group that were just openly carrying (and who the caller didn't accuse of disorderly conduct, she just wanted to make sure the police were contacted to check on an unusual situation) will result in court or convictions is yet to be seen. If they do end up in court and they are convicted of disorderly conduct I would expect an appeal. Simply being somewhere and exercising a right may concern or disturb, but whether it is illegal by the means exercised is what the court will decide. I would hope the individuals that decided to challenge convention were well prepared to face law enforcement officers and were fully aware of their rights and the possible consequences of this challenge to convention.

The Madison Police Department (MPD) has conducted a review of an incident that took place this past Saturday night at Culver's Frozen Custard restaurant, 4301 East Towne Blvd. Based upon the further investigation, Chief Noble Wray has concluded the appropriate charge for all 5 armed individuals is Disorderly Conduct (DC). Accordingly, DC citations will be issued, and Obstructing a Peace Officer tickets given to two will be rescinded.

rattletrap1970

September 24, 2010, 01:51 PM

No Snubbies. Demanding to see ID from people who were doing nothing wrong provoked the pissing contest. There was no reasonable suspicion. The charges brought afterward were retaliatory for the police getting their collective asses handed to them in court.

blutarsky

September 24, 2010, 01:53 PM

In come several men carrying guns. That has to be disturbing. The first officers on the scene could have handled it better but the two disenters provoked the pi**** contest. If WI Carry is looking to get concealed carry they would better spend their money in other areas
problem is, the point of the two people dissenting isn't an issue as those tickets were rescinded -- even the three who provided identification and went on their way are now facing charges of disorderly conduct. it's those charges of disorderly conduct for all five that were issued after the fact that are being addressed with this lawsuit. it's clear that even if all five of them gave identification at the restaurant the same eventual outcome would have occurred with disorderly conduct charges being issued. so getting wrapped up in the issue of ruffling feathers with not providing identification seems irrelevant.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 02:00 PM

The refusal to provide ID initially was the catalyst to the confrontation. What is missing here is what transpired between the officers and the 5 men in the way of conversation provocation physical demeanor. I wasn't there. If you were then please enclose a transcript of the happenings. It is not uncommon for the police to add charges after an incident when they have the opportunity to interview the officers and consult with the States Attorney

rattletrap1970

September 24, 2010, 02:16 PM

Yeah, whatever. You seem to want to defend the cops no matter what they do. The disorderly charge was retaliatory. You either are/were a cop or you're related to some or something. The catalyst was cops demanding ID from people who DID NOTHING WRONG. What part of that is unclear?
If I'm walking down the street minding my own business and a cop says "I want to see your ID right now" I'm gonna tell him to pound sand. If I get arrested, that's fine, but the department is gonna get sued. This is not Nazi Germany and if I'm not doing anything wrong I have no responsibility to show my ID to anyone.

NavyLCDR

September 24, 2010, 02:18 PM

Disagree
The refusal to provide ID initially was the catalyst to the confrontation

The officer's DETAINING law abiding citizens with no evidence whatsoever of any crime being committed is what was the catalyst to the confrontation. You are apparently perfectly OK with the concept of police detaining law abiding citizens for no reason at all.

You never answered my question snubbies:

Kidnapping is illegal. A person calls 911 to report that I am eating dinner with two kids at the table. According to you, the cops should be able to detain me and prove to them the kids are mine and I am not a kidnapper, correct?

NavyLT, that looks like it would have been useful for the Madison PD and Chief (and all other LEOs) to have read that advice before acting in this instance.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 02:28 PM

I wasn't there and I asusme you weren't either. What was said between the officers and the men?? Do you know if the restaurant owner pressed disorderly conduct after the fact??? I don't know. I am sure absent the refusal to identfy themselves from the outset the men would have been run through the computer and found not to be felons, as they ultimately were, they would have gone on their way. I have no idea what the relationship between the police and the courts is but in most cases the police are given the benefit of the doubt. I don't think any court would want to set the precedent that you don't have to identify yourself to police. This issue was dealt with in reference to traffic issues when the law required proof of drivers license by producing that license to the officer. The key to the issue of asking for ID lies in the officers reasonable suspicion. Prior to the time the officers came on the scene they had no idea of the circumstances on the scene. They had to identify the parties to determine their circumstance and position in the issue. To ask the police to come on the scene with 5 men armed without disarming them and requiring ID is unreasonable and ludicrous. If the people in WI want concealed carry cooperation with law enforce ment and not confrontation and law suits is the name of the game.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 02:33 PM

That opinion by the Chief Counsel is just that an opinion in another State. We are dealing with WI not Maaschusetts. The SUpreme Court in Hibel gave the States the right to formulate rules for the "stop and Identify" practice. What question did NavyLt want answered?

rattletrap1970

September 24, 2010, 02:36 PM

You keep saying reasonable suspicion when there was none.
So essentially some busybody made a phone call and said she was upset and the police get to ride in and make unreasonable requests of citizens that haven't done anything wrong.
This is a BS ploy for Anti's to break the collective balls of Citizens who are licensed to carry. Plain and simple.

Legionnaire

September 24, 2010, 02:39 PM

Good link, NavyLT; thanks!

esquare

September 24, 2010, 02:45 PM

Since this is yet, once again, the activism forum and snubs has yet once again derailed the conversation, what can we or the people of WI do to help?

hso

September 24, 2010, 02:46 PM

She didn't even say she was upset. She said she'd be upset if something happened and she hadn't called in. Her call was a notification to the police of an unusual situation.

There is no indication in either the Wisconsin Carry release or the Madison release that the restaurant pressed any charges of any sort. The customer made the call and the police arrived on the scene and approached the 5 after they had finished eating and exited the business without making a scene. No other customers or the business are reported to have called police with any concerns. The Madison release, an official release from the city, says the Chief made the decision to bring the charges of Disorderly Conduct. "Based upon the further investigation, Chief Noble Wray has concluded the appropriate charge for all 5 armed individuals is Disorderly Conduct (DC).".

We should all try to stick to the facts as presented in the two pieces of information we have, the WC and Madison City releases.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 02:47 PM

Reasonable suspicion may have been that the presence of armed men in the reataurant caused a disturbance witness the 911 call reporting the incident. That was for the officers to assess. If they were wrong the brass or the Court will make that determination. I don't believe any of us want the police to be hancuffed in the performance of their duties. I would rather they erred on the side of caution.

esquare

September 24, 2010, 02:51 PM

Reasonable suspicion may have been that the presence of armed men in the reataurant caused a disturbance witness the 911 call reporting the incident. That was for the officers to assess. If they were wrong the brass or the Court will make that determination. I don't believe any of us want the police to be hancuffed in the performance of their duties. I would rather they erred on the side of caution.

Yes we do want them to be restrained - this is what a limited government is based on.

Based upon the further investigation, Chief Noble Wray has concluded the appropriate charge for all 5 armed individuals is Disorderly Conduct (DC).

Based upon this comment, I suggest that we start an email/letter writing campaign to the chief and the state's AG noting how abusive his use of the disorderly conduct charge is. Can anyone get contact information?

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 02:51 PM

If I have derailed anything so have everyone else. I think the problem is you or others don't like to hear opposing positions.

rattletrap1970

September 24, 2010, 02:54 PM

Disorderly conduct, a catch-all charge that the police use when they have nothing else on you.
Reasonable suspicion is not when some guys carrying in public while take the time to order (and pay for) food then sit down to eat it and leave with no incident. Particularly when they were legally carrying open in public. Sorry, but this smacks of "It's ok if we infringe on your rights just a little to make the world a safer place". No. That isn't OK.

Waywatcher

September 24, 2010, 03:02 PM

For anyone else that questions the open carriers while defending the Police;

The kidnapping analogy is 100% solid. In this country we do not yet have to prove to the police that we are innocent.

If they have probable cause to believe a crime is/was being commited it's different, but in this particular case there was no probable cause for them to ask for ID. Not to be harsh, but a scared and ignorant senior is not probable cause.

It is different than a traffic stop. In a traffic stop, the reason you were pulled over is the probable cause, such as speeding, running a redlight, etc. That is why they ask for ID. I speculate that the majority of interaction between police and other people is often in the course of a traffic stop, and they are so used to being able to ask for ID that they do so on "auto-pilot." Just my thoughts.

WI's Atty general recently made a press release stating the Open Carry in and of itself is not grounds for Disorderly Conduct.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 04:13 PM

Probable cause is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. As I read the WI requirements only reasonable suspicion is required to "stop and Identify". What ever turns out of this "law suit" the only ones to benefit will be the lawyers. No one has identified what the plaintifs want as a remedy. It seems they are suing before any court hearings or proceedings. If at trial they are found guilty where is your law suit?? If they are found not guilty can you afford the costs involved. Can WI Carry, Inc. afford to involve itself in every issue its members may get into. They should choose their battle grounds where the most benefit will be realized.

highorder

September 24, 2010, 04:18 PM

snubbies, with all due respect you should read and understand Terry v. Ohio before you add anything else or mention reasonable suspicion again.

rattletrap1970

September 24, 2010, 04:19 PM

Oh, I see, so don't fight injustice because it is cost prohibitive, You'll have your rights a long time with that attitude.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 04:32 PM

968.24
968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

esquare

September 24, 2010, 04:36 PM

when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime

What crime could be suspected reasonably with the evidence that we have?

zxcvbob

September 24, 2010, 04:38 PM

Snubs,
What is your point? The officer cannot demand to see identification (he can certainly ask, but the person is not obliged to provide it) A verbal reply from the one being questioned is sufficient to satisfy the law.

I also don't think the officers' willful ignorance of the law is enough to reach the threshold of "reasonable" suspicion, but I don't know if that's been tested in court (yet.)

highorder

September 24, 2010, 04:39 PM

What crime could be suspected reasonably with the evidence that we have?

That is the question.

Some would say that scaring people by being legally armed is disorderly conduct.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 04:43 PM

Your reference to Terry v. Ohio is not on point. I have attached an article on Hibel which dealt with the exact issue here

Wisconsin law cited above give the officer the right to "demand" an individuals name and address

zxcvbob

September 24, 2010, 05:06 PM

Wisconsin law cited above give the officer the right to "demand" an individuals name and address
...but not the right to demand to see an ID card. I was going to look up the SC case of that guy in Nevada but you found it already.

hso

September 24, 2010, 05:06 PM

This has turned into a page and a half debate on the legal issues around the stop and citation of the WC group and not the action proposed in response to it.

Open a thread in Legal if you want to discuss this aspect of the event and refocus on the action proposed (send money) in the WC release. I think we've established that there are two opinions on the legal issue, either the police were justified or not.

snubbies

September 24, 2010, 05:17 PM

The members have the right to know the chances of success in the law suit before they contribute to the WC fund. To blindly ask for funds is unconscienable. I have presented my opinion with some documentation and others have an opposite opinion. With this information in hand the members can make an informed opinion and be guided accordingly. I have no dog in this fight since Illinois is what it is.

Tully M. Pick

September 24, 2010, 06:01 PM

Joined and donated. Thanks for the links!

jackpinesavages

September 25, 2010, 03:28 AM

Snubbies: Terry v. Ohio IS pertinent, as there was no CRIME or suspicion thereof, so the Terry Stop was illegal. It's a good lawsuit for WC and for us to contribute to if you can.

Attorney General Van Hollen has openly supported "open carry" as being legal in WI. Get your legal papers straight before getting undies in a bundle: I believe it is perfectly legal to OPEN CARRY in ILLINOIS just as easily and legally. It is just as legal to eat in that restaurant as it is to open carry in that establishment, without alcohol being served or Culvers posting signage per " No Firearms". Simply eating there, even w/o open carry, does NOT mean anyone can demand to see your ID to verify IF you are a felon or not.

Word needs to get out as I live just 35 miles south of there and this is first I've heard of it! GO WC!!

snubbies

September 25, 2010, 06:45 AM

I prefer Hibel and WI State Law. You do as you please. Try not to get so upset bad for your heart. I invite you and your carry to Chicago to test your theory.

snubbies

September 25, 2010, 07:14 AM

Is this the case for which donations are being solicited??

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/GFSZ_Complaint_A1.pdf

hso

September 25, 2010, 08:21 AM

No, it clearly says this.
On the main page you will see a "Donate" button where you can make a donation that will go specifically to this "Madison 5" lawsuit.

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/default.html#

Their page is a bit cluttered, but the Madison 5 "DONATE" button is just to the right of center.

jackpinesavages

September 25, 2010, 10:06 AM

No, it is not to each his own, as I am a certified LEO in WI and I know these laws inside and out. I understand why the Madison PD is using the DC as their charge-as stated earlier it is the "last resort" charge; you can't tie up 8 cops for an hour and come away empty handed, with nothing but their false pride. However, it is the wrong charge and has become a political statement for the PD Chief to make to A.G. JB Van Hollen right there in Madison. These 5 people will NOT get tied up in a stand-off between the Police Chief and the State's Attorney General, with me standing by doing nothing. That's darn near the definition of tyranny.

Turning this into a personal affront in telling me to not get upset is the wrong direction to go for a reasonable person. We still live in these great United States under the protective cover of the Constitution where healthy debate makes the precedant for setting standards of the REST of the World.

Here I shall make a clear point about your references, Snubbies, I am not making an affront to you personally: The wikipedia/Hibel which you prefer to stand on for your decision is not allowed to be used in basic College courses as a reference. Anyone can log into the area and make manipulations/annotations/misdirections without consequences for the actual laws and/or truth. Also, WI law on this matter is based on Terry vs. Ohio, as it is all across the land per what is commonly called a "Terry Stop". It is a Landmark case from Ohio, about 1964 IIRC, and it does not apply here for this particular case as there was no reasonable suspicion for a past/present/future crime. The Police Dept. presence actually CAUSED the situation which came forth on a peaceful and legal assembly.

Join and donate as this MAY become another landmark case. You have an opportunity to be a part of history in the making for our rights as legal gun owners. Exciting!!

paramedic70002

September 25, 2010, 10:28 AM

No offense jackpinesavages but that sounds like a 'contempt of cop' charge.

OCing and not playing LEO games works well in many other states, like my beloved Virginia. It took a little while and a few payouts but eventually the LEOs 'got it' and problems now are rare.

Regarding the 'what if they are felons' argument, then the LEO would be basing reasonable suspicion on the belief that anyone carrying a gun is a felon. That will not hold up in any court.

jackpinesavages

September 25, 2010, 11:00 AM

" No offense jackpinesavages but that sounds like a 'contempt of cop' charge."

No offense taken, and you are correct. There is nothing more destructive to any PD than egos, and they get all out of whack during election years in particular when they FEEL a statement needs to be made.

This is why it is important to support this WCOrg. in a legal and productive manner: to send the statement back that we do NOT need PDs who are enforcers, but protectors of the Constitution they are sworn to. Their egos and false pride get all swollen up and the PDs forget who it is they SERVE.

I listened to the 911 Dispatch call and read the statement from Madison P.D.. The immediate inconsistencies between the initial call for service and the PD's initial statement can make this another landmark case. Join. Donate. Buy a t-shirt, but don't stand by and do nothing while the wrong message goes out. (I mean, the Dispatcher even TELLS the 911 caller that the Attorney General has openly declared OC as a legal activity!) Let's get behind these people and help keep their records clean and the laws on the books more clear.

NavyLCDR

September 25, 2010, 11:20 AM

jackpinesavages,

Sir, you are a scholar, a gentlemen and a true patriot! Thank you for your service!

jackpinesavages

September 25, 2010, 12:07 PM

You are welcome NavyLT. There are some of us who SHALL NOT tarnish the badge and WILL remain loyal to the law abiding citizens of this great nation.

NavyLCDR

September 25, 2010, 12:39 PM

There are some of us who SHALL NOT tarnish the badge and WILL remain loyal to the law abiding citizens of this great nation.

It's too bad it's usually only those that don't that get the notoriety.

Wishoot

September 25, 2010, 01:03 PM

Donated. This is just about the most preposterous act of community dis-service committed by the MPD.

Legionnaire

September 25, 2010, 02:34 PM

Went to the wisconsincarry site and listened to the conversation with the dispatcher. After hearing the dispatcher tell the caller that open carry was legal, and hearing the caller apologize in effect for making an unnecessary call, I decided to make a donation to the legal fund. I'll say again, it looks to me like the PD has provided a great case for us. Will continue to watch with great interest.

snubbies

September 25, 2010, 03:33 PM

Has any found heard of or saw an officers account of what happened on scene??

DenaliPark

September 25, 2010, 04:14 PM

Is it legal in WI for a felon to open carry a firearm?? If not, how is the police officer to know if you are a felon with out your ID and subsequent computer check. Some of your group provided ID some didn't. Was alcohol an issue? It just seems that failure to comply is over reaction. Now it is going to cost your organization and members time and money to address this issue. How is this different from the case where the police ask for your drivers license in a traffic situation?? Good Luck
Is it legal where you live for the police to demand that you prove you're not a felon while eating your dinner out?

DenaliPark

September 25, 2010, 04:20 PM

" No offense jackpinesavages but that sounds like a 'contempt of cop' charge."

No offense taken, and you are correct. There is nothing more destructive to any PD than egos, and they get all out of whack during election years in particular when they FEEL a statement needs to be made.

This is why it is important to support this WCOrg. in a legal and productive manner: to send the statement back that we do NOT need PDs who are enforcers, but protectors of the Constitution they are sworn to. Their egos and false pride get all swollen up and the PDs forget who it is they SERVE.

I listened to the 911 Dispatch call and read the statement from Madison P.D.. The immediate inconsistencies between the initial call for service and the PD's initial statement can make this another landmark case. Join. Donate. Buy a t-shirt, but don't stand by and do nothing while the wrong message goes out. (I mean, the Dispatcher even TELLS the 911 caller that the Attorney General has openly declared OC as a legal activity!) Let's get behind these people and help keep their records clean and the laws on the books more clear.
I reside well north of the Mad city, up in Burnett county(the fishbowl). Madison is a city that is foaming at the mouth far left of center, way, way left of center. At one time in the past decade as I recall, they tried to BAN all handguns from the home, I believe forcing the owners to lock them up at the sheriffs office was what they were after at the time...

zxcvbob

September 25, 2010, 04:26 PM

"Hello, 911? There are five BLACK PEOPLE two tables over from me at the Culvers restaurant. They are making me uncomfortable."

"No, they are just sitting there eating their lunch, all relaxed. Is that allowed? I mean, I would feel *awful* if they did something nasty and I hadn't report it."

I think it's a pretty good analogy, at least from the police's perspective.

snubbies

September 25, 2010, 04:29 PM

Denalipark

Where I come from, Chicago, when a police officer asks you for your ID you give it to him. That is unless you have something to hide. I guess it comes from proper upbringing.

snubbies

September 25, 2010, 04:39 PM

http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2231

Diggers

September 25, 2010, 05:02 PM

Snubbies, if you don't care about your rights that is fine but don't expect everyone else to roll over just because you are not willing to stand up for your self.
If an officer showed up at your house and said he wanted to seach it are you going to let him? What about if your are pulled over for speeding, are you going to let them search your car?

Where exactly do you draw the line? You need to draw it somewhere, actually its already been drawn for you, its called COTUS.

The clear problem the PD has with their case is they dismissed the two obstruction cites they issued and THEN issued all five people D.C. cites. :confused: If these people were truly in violation of the law (D.C.) then the obstruction cites would also be valid. :scrutiny:

jackpinesavages right on brother LEO, lets keep it real, and keep the U.S. what it should be.

NavyLT Hows Whidbey today? My father-inlaw lived up there for the last 18 years and just passed last July. Great guy we miss him. I always loved going up there to visit him and go crabing with him in Penn Cove. Amazing place.

highorder

September 25, 2010, 05:53 PM

Where I come from, Chicago, when a police officer asks you for your ID you give it to him. That is unless you have something to hide.

The understanding of the concept of Liberty varies widely here in America.

jackpinesavages

September 25, 2010, 05:53 PM

Right. We have a family place west of Trego. 50K acres of public land for open carry and the best fishing in the world. ;-)

Snubbies: just stay in Chicago w/o your weapons and you'll be OK, OK?

" I reside well north of the Mad city, up in Burnett county(the fishbowl). Madison is a city that is foaming at the mouth far left of center, way, way left of center. At one time in the past decade as I recall, they tried to BAN all handguns from the home, I believe forcing the owners to lock them up at the sheriffs office was what they were after at the time... "

snubbies

September 25, 2010, 06:23 PM

Highorder

In answer to your questions, If I had nothing to hide yes I would let them search. I guess I am old school but not narrow minded. I think you are upset because I don't march route step with your comrades in arms. Sorry

DenaliPark

September 25, 2010, 06:36 PM

Denalipark

Where I come from, Chicago, when a police officer asks you for your ID you give it to him. That is unless you have something to hide. I guess it comes from proper upbringing.
Proper upbringing? Where did mom & dad slip in you have to also be a sucker when yes sir, no sir, was all that was required?

snubbies

September 25, 2010, 06:46 PM

http://www.opencarry.org/wi.html

rattletrap1970

September 25, 2010, 06:55 PM

Snubbies, I was gonna stay out of this. I really was. But you are WRONG. It's not a matter of opinion. You are wrong. Period. Every one like you diminishes our rights. People like you is what is wrong with our country. If this gets me banned off this site, well guys, sorry, but that's the way it is. If you think cops are just there to take care of you and no wrong will come from complying completely even if you don't have to, well, that is a fools game. That BS about "If you have nothing to hide, then why don't you let us search your car/house/whatever." That's crazy.

zxcvbob

September 25, 2010, 07:10 PM

Maybe it's not Snubs's fault. If a Chicago cop asks for your ID and you don't give it to him fast enough, he just might beat you half to death and then arrest you for assaulting *him*. Just like that drunk Chicago cop that beat up a barmaid because she wouldn't serve him another drink. Or he might shoot you, just for his own amusement (like Daley threatened a news reporter with recently)

I don't go to chicago. I can't tell the cops from the criminals. I'm not sure there's really a difference.

snubbies

September 25, 2010, 07:40 PM

I have been meaning to ask WI residents, Is there a training or testing you must undergo for the open carry to be legal??? Can just anyone strap on a gun??

DenaliPark

September 25, 2010, 08:04 PM

I have been meaning to ask WI residents, Is there a training or testing you must undergo for the open carry to be legal??? Can just anyone strap on a gun??
Why would they require training?

snubbies

September 25, 2010, 08:14 PM

I will take that as a NO. I would like the people carrying guns in public to be able to hit what they are aiming at and not an innocent party 2 blocks away. Who controls the possesion of firearms by felons, mentally ill under age individuals. If an officer sees a very young looking individual packing heat, would that be reasonable suspicion enough to stop and require ID??? An officer sees a known gang member with a gun on his hip. Is that reasonable suspicion to stop him??? An officer sees a known parolee with a firearm OK to stop and adentify???

armoredman

September 25, 2010, 08:55 PM

Another reason to love AZ...open carry legal and normal since we were The Arizona Territory.
The refusal to provide ID initially was the catalyst to the confrontation
Based on what I read, the officers provoked the confrontation by violating the law, not the other way around. Based on the chief's reaction, he agrees. Definately "contempt of cop" charges, gonna drag that city into an interesting court battle. I wish I could donate to this but I may be temporarily unemployed myself soon. Best of luck to you!

Edit to add, snubbies, stay out of AZ, you'll die of panic induced heart failure. We allow any law abiding non-prohibited person 21 and over to carry openly or concealed without permit, FOID, license, registration, etc. Actually, 18 to carrry openly. The open carry has worked so far, for something like over 100 years. Constitutional Carry just started in July.

thesearcher

September 25, 2010, 08:58 PM

i'm from madison, there is no required training or testing for open carry. I'm glad to see a thread on here about this topic. if you go to madison.com there are currently four or five articles about it. there are discussions attached to these articles were you may register and post your own comments on the issue. we need as many level headed rights advocates as we can get on that site, like mentioned madison is very left of center, and most of the comments are ridiculing these gentleman and very few of the people seem to care about our rights. Guns apparently make the people of madison so nervous they are willing to give up their rights in order not to see them. I would personally like to see WI get concealed carry but not with the current politicians, who seem to believe that criminals regard laws in the first place.

snubbies

September 25, 2010, 09:42 PM

I appretiate your comments. I am sure you know as a marine you pick your fight if you can. I feel and have tried however inadequately to bring across my point that this case in not the right one in light of other efforts toward concealed carry in Wisconsin. If the individuals want to pursue action against Madison then that is their perogative. The Unions have learned to pick and choose their battle grounds. You don't back a cause that may set an unwanted precedent.

I have been meaning to ask WI residents, Is there a training or testing you must undergo for the open carry to be legal??? Can just anyone strap on a gun?? "

No, not just anyone can strap on a gun. For the Open Carry to be legal there are the usual guidelines to follow such as a legal ownership of said firearm, churches and bars and schools are excluded locations, etc.. However, you told me you were a paralegal for 10 years after several years of college-wouldn't this language be quite familiar to you already, from the legal fields?

NavyLCDR

September 26, 2010, 12:02 AM

I appretiate your comments. I am sure you know as a marine you pick your fight if you can. I feel and have tried however inadequately to bring across my point that this case in not the right one in light of other efforts toward concealed carry in Wisconsin. If the individuals want to pursue action against Madison then that is their perogative. The Unions have learned to pick and choose their battle grounds. You don't back a cause that may set an unwanted precedent.

What you fail to understand, snubbies, is that this fight is not about the 2nd amendment. It's about the 4th amendment.

Ramman911

September 26, 2010, 12:41 AM

Does anyone else find it ironic that the three that cooperated are now also receiving a CD ticket along with the two that would not show the ID? Works out better for the city financially I guess to give everyone who open carries a CD ticket. I think they want a new police gym or something and are trying to raise some funds :neener:

NavyLCDR

September 26, 2010, 12:52 AM

Does anyone else find it ironic that the three that cooperated are now also receiving a CD ticket along with the two that would not show the ID?

How did the police get the names/addresses of the three that cooperated in order to issue them citations after the fact? Oh wait... they gave it to the police!

Cosmoline

September 26, 2010, 01:49 AM

Snubbie, you seem to be confusing the concepts of "reasonable suspicion" with "no reasonable suspicion." In this case the responding officers identified a number of men who were apparently breaking no law. There was by definition NO REASONABLE SUSPICION. You cannot claim reasonable suspicion unless there is in fact some reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion is not an open invitation for the officers to dig around and try to find something that might be illegal. For example I might be a criminal on a wanted list. Or there might be a bench warrant on me. But that does not give any LEO in this country a right to demand ID apropos of nothing. And since carrying a firearm in the manner described here was not illegal, the officers had NOTHING. So they dug to see if they could find something.

If you were correct, the any officer could stop any citizen at any time and demand their ID on the "suspicion" that they MIGHT be doing something illegal. That may be a suspicion, but it is not a reasonable one.

snubbies

September 26, 2010, 06:51 AM

They had a report of men with guns. They came to investigate. They followed policy, right or wrong. My question about "anyone strap on a gun" was rhetorical. NAVYLT The 4th amendmant rights issue has been resolved in Hibel cited above

Please read the cite below. I posted this previously and nobody seems to read anymore.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.

hso

September 26, 2010, 09:23 AM

The legal debate on the issue of showing ID has been wisely opened in the Legal forum (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=545907) so we can refocus now on the proposed RKBA action instead of having the majority of this thread be an argument on showing ID. Move all further debate on the legal issue on ID to the thread in Legal. http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=545907